World's hottest day since records began

magicbastarder

'they weren't worried'. How does he know? That physics professor should stick to physics.

Str8outtaWuhan

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120837520#Comment_120837520

Human reproductive rates are slowing, we will top out at 10 billion. More than enough land and water for thrice that amount. There is the same amount of U238 now as there was then. It's all pearl clutching and scaremongering. The human race, sans technology has survived greater environmental challenges than the current one. To put it into context , 6 billion ppl on this planet are descended from 7 males who waded across the shallow sea from Somalia to Oman!!!

Jizique

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120837520#Comment_120837520

What age are you? Twelve? I remember the 80s and the nuclear proliferation in Europe and the Berlin Wall and Iron curtain, I watch Deutschland 83, 86 and 89, which brought it all back, I remember Lena and 99 Red Balloons, i lived through the teachings of the church in Ireland and how we thought we were all doomed for having sexual fantasies, I remember how we used all laugh and sneer at the American telly-evangelists and their grift around the world ending, and here we are - building up these gobshites as the new thought police and grifters is horrific.

The biggest issue, as I see it is greed and overpopulation, and not necessarily in that order. The biggest contribution to emissions is having a kid. Or more. In many ways, Bob Geldof and LiveAid was a disaster for emissions, given every metric I see on population growth in Africa.

Let's cut to the chase and ban people from having more than two kids. Let's also ban pets, they carry a big footprint in their food production, and cats are big killers of small birds, as indeed are seagulls of baby ducks, so let's have a cull on them while we are at it.

SuperBowserWorld

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120838628#Comment_120838628

How did those males reproduce ?

M.T. Cranium

I would view Canadian wildfires as an effect rather than a cause of warming. In fact all the smoke from the wildfires seemed to be having a cooling effect in eastern North America which war running 1-2 C below normal in June.

I think it's true to say that the swing from La Nina to El Nino conditions will push the global average up a bit faster again. That is what happened in several recent cases of major El Nino events.

Not out of complacency so much as realism, I don't think there is much that can be done on a practical level to change the outcome, which in any case is partly human caused and partly natural variability at work. Some are suggesting less complex solutions such as shielding the earth from 100% of incoming solar radiation with deflecting particles released in the stratosphere. I find these suggestions troubling because of the dangers of unknown feedback results. The last thing we want to do is to plunge the earth into a glacial maximum (or "ice age" although in technical terms we are still in the dying stages of the previous ice age). If people think this warming climate is bad, a glacial maximum climate would be a catastrophe on a much larger scale, it would remove living space for a quarter of the current population of the planet and stress the food production for the remaining ice-free regions.

People say we are doing nothing but in fact there are some fairly drastic political economic changes already underway such as a mandated switch to all electric vehicle sales within a decade in parts of the developed world. You could ban all gasoline powered vehicles tomorrow but I doubt that the climate would respond over the coming decade in any observably different way than it will to the existing mandated changes, which in itself may prove to be a negligible impact. Vast and draconian changes that produce 0.1 C temperature differentials don't make much sense on any level.

Adaptation makes more sense, and in any case this is likely to become a fairly minor increase going forward because natural variability factors are likely to turn increasingly negative. AGW is not the only game in town in climate change. Given that we seem destined to have a largely fossil-fuel-free world within a generation, if the longer term natural drivers go negative on a scale of any greater than 0.1 C a decade, the net effect is likely to be a return to the sort of cool-normal climate we had around the 1960s. Maybe rock music will also improve.

monseiur

Planet earth has been going thru periods of extreme climates for millions of years. Climate by it's very nature is ever changing it cannot stand still or be constant. The last ice age, for example, ended approx 12,000 years ago. Slowly the planet warmed up, the sea levels gradually rose as the ice sheet receded. What caused this ??? One can reasonably assume that it wasn't caused by human activity. !!! Did the Homo Sapiens at the time start to panic and shout from the hill tops that end was nigh, the planet was burning?

Since the ending of the last ice age our planet has gone thru many periods of moderately extreme temperatures. The Medieval Warm Period is an example, it lasted for approx 300 years (950 to 1250) It is estimated that the average temperatures were 2 to 4 degrees above the planets current average temp.

This warm period was followed by a period of climate cooling which occurred from the middle of the 14th century to the middle of the 19th century - is sometimes called The Little Ice Age. The river Thames in London for example froze every winter for over 500 years. It is interesting to note that weather records began during this cold period and today's global temperatures are being compared to them.

bluedex

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120838658#Comment_120838658

Why don't we also kill everyone when they reach the age of 30? Maybe in a big festival in a domed city. If anyone tries to avoid it we should hunt them down with an armed force of Sandmen.

Str8outtaWuhan

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120838688#Comment_120838688

Sexually?

SuperBowserWorld

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120838998#Comment_120838998

Yes, but with what females ?

Str8outtaWuhan

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120839030#Comment_120839030

With the Neanderthal and denisovan females one assumes, who would have been present in the Levant from the previous climate change 250k years before.

Larbre34

As ever M.T. is the voice of balanced reason, but I agree and disagree with him on different things.

I agree that there is likely little to nothing that can be done to counter anthropogenic climate change at this point. In my opinion, the economics of dealing with outcomes trump the economic argument for panicked mitigation measures, whose outcomes are far from certain, yet the impoverishment they will inflict on so many worldwide is certain.

Where I disagree is on the impact of recent political shifts, particularly the one he mentions about the mandatory shifts to electric vehicles.

Honestly, while China and India particularly, but also others, generate well above 50% of their electricity from burning coal, I don't think EVs and some other measures will add up to a hill of beans.

A back of a napkin calculation I did recently on the data available, showed that anywhere between 2.5 and 3.5 billion people on the planet effectively get all their energy for their domestic and industrial consumption from burning coal. And JUST coal by the way, I'm not even including the slightly more efficent burning fossil fuels of gas and fuel oil in that.

And realistically, 75% of that cohort will continue to do so past 2030.

It puts EVs and sustainable jet fuel and heat pumps and all those other fashions somewhat in the category of the ridiculous.

Gaoth Laidir

There are plenty of papers showing how global brightening - increased solar shortwave radiation reaching the surface due to reduced aerosols and cloudiness following on from the clean-air policies - over recent decades has been a major factor in increasing the severity of heatwaves in many parts of the world, including Europe, N America, China and the general North Atlantic area.

GHG did not suddenly increase the temperature of the water in the NE Atlantic in June, it was a sequence of days of light winds and wall-to-wall unbroken sunshine. As soon as the wind and cloud returned, the temperatures retreated.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-022-06438-3

Solar radiation is a crucial climate variable and the fundamental energy source for the Earth-atmosphere system. It plays a critical role in driving surface temperatures, large-scale atmospheric circulation, and the global and local hydrological cycle (Allen et al. 2013; Wild et al. 2016; Allan et al. 2020). Downward surface solar radiation (SSR) (also known as downward surface shortwave radiation) represents a major energy exchange at the interface between the atmosphere and the Earth’s surface. Changes in SSR therefore have the potential to significantly impact various aspects of the climate system, with associated socio-economic impacts arising from the resultant changes in weather and climate events (Wild 2005; Allen et al. 2013; Wild et al. 2016).

...

During the past few decades, there were large changes in the magnitude and spatial pattern of aerosol and aerosol precursor emissions. These changes are characterized by strong increases from the 1950s to 1970s over North America and Europe, reductions there since the mid-1980s in response to air quality measures, and an increase over Asia and Africa since the 1970s (Klimont et al. 2013). Surface solar radiation measurements in many regions, especially over Europe and North America, have shown large multidecadal swings that have been attributed to these emission changes, with radiation decreases throughout the 1950s–1970s (“dimming”) and increases during the 1990s (“brightening”) (e.g., Wild et al. 2005; Stjern et al. 2009; Allen et al. 2013; Wild 2016; Schwarz et al. 2020; Wohland et al. 2020; Wang et al. 2022). These observed multidecadal changes likely played an important role in regulating surface warming, and global and regional hydrological cycles (Wild et al. 2005; Wild 2016; Folini and Wild 2011; Allen et al. 2013; Freychet et al. 2019; Allan et al. 2020; Cherian and Quaas 2020).

...

Anthropogenic forcings, including greenhouses and aerosols, may affect cloud cover and SSR directly, and indirectly through their influence on sea surface temperature (e.g., Gregory and Andrews 2016; Zhou et al. 2016; Dong et al. 2017). Previous studies have indicated that changes in SSR and cloud cover are important factors in extreme hot temperatures and heatwaves over Europe and North America (e.g., Smith et al. 2013; Dong et al. 2016; 2017; Freychet et al. 2019; Luo et al. 2020; Tang et al. 2020). However, a detailed understanding of how changes in forcings may have affected cloud cover and SSR in the North Atlantic sector during the last four decades is still lacking, especially regarding the relative importance of different forcing factors.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0528-y

https://dwd.de/DE/leistungen/solarenergie/download_dekadenbericht.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=6

https://www.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/env/radiation/diag_rad.html

Akrasia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120838888#Comment_120838888

This is completely untrue and also ridiculously irresponsible.

The emissions we have already emitted will continue to warm the planet for decades to come, and any additional emissions will only add to that. And on top of those, we also have the feedbacks, the methane being released by melting permafrost, the change in albedo from melting glaciers and ice sheets, the thermal storage in the oceans that will take centuries to reverse.

If temperatures are to fall back to the temperatures we had in the 1960s, we'd need a massive reduction in ghg concentrations in the atmosphere, and we have not got the technology to do that, and no industrial producers have any incentive to spend their resources to capture CO2 from their activities

It is not good enough to just allow fossil fuels to wind down at their own pace. We can see that they constantly demand new exploration licenses, more production, more state subsidies etc. The fossil fuel industry want to extract maximum value from all of their assets for as long as possible. The planet cannot absorb all of those additional emissions.

It's a planetary emergency. We need to act accordingly to put globally binding restrictions on carbon emissions even if it causes economic disruption in the short term. This is a long term problem that only gets worse the longer we fail to address it

Thelonious Monk

This is a good thread explaining the current pickle we're in

https://twitter.com/edgarrmcgregor/status/1678877083093848064

Akrasia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120838959#Comment_120838959

The last age didn't end 12k years ago, we're still in an interglacial period.

Due to Human activity, we are actually heading for the end of the ice age. the collapse of the ice sheets in the northern hemisphere, along with the long term decline of Antarctic ice mass

The last time the Greenland Ice sheets fully melted was over 1.5 million years ago. The last time Antarctica was ice free was 35 million years ago. Humans, as in Homo Sapiens, have never existed in a time when there were no northern ice caps, but we're pushing conditions now to those that will lead to the terminal decline in the Greenland ice sheets within the next 500-1000 years, with further warming accelerating that process. That's a magnitude of at least 10 times faster than any naturally occurring change that we have ever seen other than one caused by a massive astronomical impact

We're way outside of the natural cycles of climate change. It is unequivocal that humans are the main drivers of the current climate change, so it is entirely up to us to prevent changes that will be severely detrimental to human development, and the health of our biosphere that we rely on for survival.

Anyone who thinks any of this is 'natural' is completely wrong

bluedex

Not many people think it's not related to human activity. However, humans occupy the planet in increasing numbers so will obviously have an impact on the planet and it's biosphere, that's unavoidable. It's also not possible to stop it without reducing the number of humans, so possibly we should be focused on devising solutions and adapting, rather than following unrealistic policies to reverse or stop it.

I recognise that this view will be ridiculed by the Stop Climate Change zealots, but that's inevitible.

randomname2005

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120840824#Comment_120840824

I wouldn't call myself a climate change zealot but I don't see how we devise solutions and adapt without massive impact on society as we in the western world know it.

Desertification is increasing. Agricultural land is reducing through drought, farmers not having family members willing to take on the farm, change of use to housing or commercial usage. Population is increasing. People need food and will move to areas where there is more food available but not all areas are maintaining food production or increasing it. Hence we have a shortage of food or at the very least, a decreasing surplus. As more and more people from less developed countries want to have the same standard of living as the west including the variety of food, availability at all times of the year, we place more and more stress on food production, more use of chemicals and non sustainable methods and the cycle escalates.

Replace food with housing - people want comfortable spaces to live, more western levels of housing with instant heating and air conditioning, which requires a lot of resources.

Transport infrastructure and travel. Gadgets, the list goes on.

If we keep consuming as we are, with ever increasing population, with more conflicts because of lack of food and water, then we will accelerate the climate change impact and have a worse quality of life (impact on food and medical supplies, building materials, etc that we see now but worse) and also water and air quality issues.

Without a massive change I don't see a way out. Maybe I am a climate change zealot and a doomsday proponent...

Larbre34

Ah calm down Akrasia, one thing I can promise is that you haven't a hope of doing a single thing on your own.

Not when there are 3 Billion folks in the developing World who either don't know or don't care about all of what you described.

randomname2005

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120842021#Comment_120842021

Absolutely, there is next to nothing that any individual can do. Grow your own food, or some of it, and all that is off set by some billionaire flying around in their private jet. Buy from your local farmer's market, that is offset by a few missiles fired in one of the many conflict zones around the world, or some super inefficient tanks driving across the battlefield.

And yes, those people in the developing world just trying to survive who don't care about emissions or anything else but food and clean water and tomorrow.

briany

The only way you're going to get people to willingly give up fossil fuels is by replacing them with a green energy source that is the same cost or cheaper. If that can be sorted between now and the point at which large swathes of the Earth are rendered uninhabitable by a runaway greenhouse effect, we may stand some kind of a chance as a species. If not, then we're basically fúcked and individuals may only hope that they are dead before they meet the business end of a societal collapse which will be most unpleasant for 99 percent of us.

Those who argue that climate change is happening as part of a natural cycle - let's just assume, if only for the sake of argument, that this is being said in good faith - it's a shallow way to look at things because proponents do not say much about the remaining need to mitigate the effects of this climate change that would still be happening. Nor does it say anything about the idea of greenhouse gases adding to the severity of that 'natural cycle', unless they want to say that greenhouse gases have no effect, which is a whole other level of science denying. Not only that, but if this is really out of a desire to keep fossil fuels, then it's really out of a desire to keep cheap energy.... except that fossil fuels are a finite resource and are becoming harder and more expensive to extract all the time, which makes everything more expensive as a result. There isn't really any excuse not to want to see a wholesale transition to green energy, no matter what side of the debate you stand on, unless you literally work for Exxon, et al. Everybody wants cheaper energy. If we can have that without a rise in emissions, or indeed with a drastic lowering of them, what's the problem? Win all round. The good life with less pollution.

We need the technological breakthroughs to where it just makes more economic and practical sense to power everything off of solar, wind, tidal, or even nuclear. Everything else is just rearranging the deck chairs, imo.

Akrasia

Harnessing abundant renewable energy is the number 1 thing we should be doing now. This requires governments to take this seriously and to drop all subsidies for fossil fuels

Instead of playing thousands in winter fuel allowance to people on welfare so they can buy coal and oil, insulate their homes and install solar and electrical heating.

Force landlords to upgrade their rentals to BER b3 or higher

Do what Italy has done and give greater than 100% grants for upgrades that improve energy efficiency.

And then invest heavily in the grid to allow distributed generation and much faster grid connections.

The investments we make now will pay dividends in the future. Every penny we spend on fossil fuel subsidies is adding more debt onto the future

fullstop

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120838658#Comment_120838658

Yeah, registered in 2005 and I’m 12. Genius aren’t you?

ednwireland

just to add to the heart in Australia ( no one here thinks its particularly warm). sydney dry snow in the mountains further south. best snow season since 1981 apparently.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.abc.net.au/article/102590832

y0ssar1an22

worlds hottest day since records began.

that seems comprehensive.

when did records begin? and how far back do we go?

the best cure for nausea ever...that worked out well.

it'll be fine, relax.

unkel

@briany - "The only way you're going to get people to willingly give up fossil fuels is by replacing them with a green energy source that is the same cost or cheaper."

Agreed. That has already happened though. Wind and PV are already far cheaper per kWh produced than gas, oil or coal. Electric cars are already far cheaper in total cost of ownership than combustion engine cars. Unfortunately many people (particularly in Ireland compared to some more progressive countries) are slow to realise this

briany

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120844375#Comment_120844375

It needs to be publicised and encouraged to the hilt in this case. That is assuming, however, that the energy *storage* aspect of PV and wind have been sorted, given that peak energy production times don't necessarily align with peak usage times.

randomname2005

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120844375#Comment_120844375

I wouldn't say it has happened, but it is in the process of happening. We are still reliant on fossil fuels to a large extent. I don't see trucks crossing Ireland or other countries on electric power any time soon without some kind of battery swap option. I don't see manufacturing switching to electric power for melting metal for example.

In some ways we should stay reliant on fossil fuels and keep ice vehicles on the road as long as possible. While the emissions are higher compared to a new car, the emissions involved in manufacturing a new car and shipping it are way worse.

Forcing longevity into products, requiring spare parts to be available for many years and affordable so that things can be repaired 6 or 7 or 10 years later would be a good step but that would impact corporation profits too much

ednwireland

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120844375#Comment_120844375

problem is the capital Investment you have to put in to access that cheap energy.

And the alleged cheap cost doesn't filter down to users blighted by this tech.

if I go up the hill behind my house I can see around 8 windfarms. not made my leccy any cheaper.

cdeb

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120844486#Comment_120844486

Yeah, electric cars are part of the solution for sure, but they're an easy win in that the switch to electric drives consumption and feeds the economy - the bigger picture we have to sort

Rowan Atkinson had an article in the Guardian about it recently and pointed out that there's little point switching to electric if the current hire purchase model continues to apply - that is, buy a new car, get cheap monthly payments for three years and then you either pay a huge balloon payment or buy a new car. So lots more carbon emissions before the breakeven point (electric cars generate more carbon in production and three years isn't enough for them to generate less electric in the operation)

Until we can tackle that sort of carbon production, then we're not addressing the problem in good faith I think

Shoog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120829358#Comment_120829358

They publish evidence based science. All climate sceptical scientific papers which have reached publication have been subsequently withdrawn for inaccuracies or proven incorrect.

In short there are no accepted climate sceptical papers out in publication. None, not a single one. Fortunately publishing a paper is only the first stage, it has to be replicable by other scientists and this is where the climate sceptical papers fail.

So no there is no conspiracy to surpress skeptical papers - they fail due to their inadequacy.